The last simulation on the desert is Kasserine Pass (hereafter referred to as KP). It is available from the Conflict Game Company, P.O. Box 2071, West Lafayette, Indiana, 47906. Priced at $8.98. It is a regiment/battalion level simulation of the Battle of Kasserine Pass. Action is from February 14th to 25th with one-day moves. You receive a colorful box 12" x8.5" x1" which is adequate for the parts sent. The board (and die cut units) are slightly larger than the normal Avalon Hill style hexagon, which really aids in playing. The board is not mounted but is a rubberized paper. The 15" x 25" board is quite colorful with three colors; again, as in Desert Fox, a desert yellow predominates. A terrain chart is printed on the board with high ground, rugged crest, cliffs, river, road, and town hexagons. You also receive a rule sheet, an errata slip, a CRT, two dice, 2 order of battle sheets, green and yellow die cut counters that are excellent, and one "snap top" plastic bag. The game equipment is all very professional looking and well done. The only drawback is that the board is not mounted, which it should be to justify its high price. KP was designed by John Hill and was playtested by outside groups. John Hill is the president of Conflict games. His company has three other games in its line. KP is basically the Battle of the Bulge North African style. The likenesses between the Avalon Hill game and KP are numerous. The CRT has "contacts" and "engaged" results, the tactical situation is alike, and the "feel" is alike. Let Mr. Hill say a few words about his simulation: The battle of Kasserine Pass has always seemed ideal for a wargame. It had all the elements that should make for an exciting contest: clearly defined terrain objectives, fairly equal, though disimilar forces, and a logical time limit . . . the tangle of the German chain of command is not accounted for in the game. So, from that viewpoint, the game is not 'historically accurate.' To have put it in would have forced the German to play under an 'idiot factor,' which would have severly limited the manner in which the German handled his army. The whole point of a wargame is to see what you can do with the 'historical forces' rather than force you to act out a pre-planned script of a military debacle; . . In Africa . . . with occurances of victory with a bold 1 to 3, and disasters at the usually 'safe' 3 to 1. So, the only way this could be portrayed in a game was to generate a double-dice table loaded with the more probable results, but still encompassing the lunatic fringe effects. Thus, it is possible, but unlikely (36-1 chance) to get an 'A[ttacker] Elim' at 3 to 1 .... In overview the battle of Kasserine Pass was pretty much a contest between German armor and Allied artillery .... KP is unoriginal. It has some minor rules of interest, such as special ranger units, cliffs, and artillery that fires defensively and offensively. But it may be just that element of unoriginality that makes KP a very enjoyable and playable simulation. Our playtesters constantly wanted to play this one. And with good reason. It is short, has Panzers, fast moving units, not too many units, little bookkeeping, and the capability for either side to attack locally. Most of the action does take place around four main passes in one third of the board after the first two turns. But there is still the possibility of different strategies developing. This simulation will not be played once and then put on the shelf to collect dust. There are, however, some problems with KP. The first is the price. It is not worth $8.98 as a physical product. Again we have a rule problem which reflects poor playtesting and rule checking. For instance, Ranger units may proceed through any terrain. However, in another section of the rules, no unit may go up or down cliffs. These are mostly minor rule problems that can be resolved by two players willing to take the time to study the rules and come to a fair agreement. KP has something else that is nice; a designer with a sense of humor. John Hill relates with the Pepsi generation and has some humor in the rules and order-of-battle chart. As an historical tool KP is not particularly advanced. Again there is a lack of a bibliography. Some unit strengths appear incorrect (an Italian battalion is equal to an American battalion except for movement). It appears, though, that the Conflict Game Company is not striving to produce highly accurate and therefore highly unplayable simulations. Instead it is striving to produce enjoyable games in the tradition of Stalingrad or Waterloo. With KP it has achieved that. In looking at these three simulations there are certain conclusions we can draw. A certain physical quality in simulations is expected with certain prices. Only with Desert Fox (excusing the two-piece mapboard) do you get a physical product worth the price. A certain level of professionalism is expected, for that is how far the hobby has advanced in simple terms of quality control. Another aspect I have been struck with is the glut of simulations on the market. There are now too many simulations for the collector to choose from. At one time the wargamer could buy every simulation that appeared on the market, and the hardcore did. This can no longer be done unless one foregoes playing and enjoying the simulations he purchases. Many of the designers of simulations for commercial purchase appear to have rushed their product as if there were no tomorrow, causing the added problems of inadequately tested products. One other factor that struck me was the constant use of numbers. There will be a short article in next issue on the use of numbers in a simulation. In these three simulations the simple mechanics involved nothing more than the manipulation of numbers, with the exception of the hidden combat strength of Desert Fox. The budding game designer who wishes to market a product should consider these points. Is the simulation adequately tested and do the rules make sense? Proper testing must be done by outside people to avoid an incestuous relationship. The price should adequately reflect the physical product received. The simulation should be ready before it is sold or advertised. One should pick a playable topic. For example, to make Afrika Korps, Rommel, and Desert Fox historically more accurate, the designers should have taken a smaller period of time, such as in the mini-games. This way, outside factors such as withdrawals could be isolated. No tactical or strategic situation is isolated or insulated from outside influences, and if one wants to be historical in his approach then these outside influences must fully be accounted for or else pointed out. Furthermore, these outside influences, especially over a long period of time, do not remain passive. Bibliographies and credits should be given for any simulation. This points out the inadequate research that appears time and again. "Better Research means Better Games." One must look beyond the popular and easy-to-obtain works. This is not necessarily just for detail either, but for more accurate maps, better orders of battle, and ultimately a better understanding of the mental and philosophical framework under which the opposing sides were operating. Game designing is not simply counting rifles and reflecting it with a number; it is a definite art. Research can give part of that base. One last factor along these lines is the need for fuller designer's notes. Virtually all simulations are inadequate in this respect. The player should know the why for some factor or rule. This will aid in his understanding, and possibly the designer's understanding also. Introduction Review: Rommel Review: Desert Fox Review: Kasserine Pass Back to Conflict Number 6 Table of Contents Back to Conflict List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1973 by Dana Lombardy This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com